270 Mr. H. J. Carter on the Branched and 
it may fairly be assumed that when the second volume of this 
great work was priuted (viz. in the month of March 1816), 
Lamouroux’s appellation had not been generally accepted, if, 
indeed, known or published. 
Clear, however, as all this would appear to be, the confu- 
sion to which I have alluded extends down to 1842, when 
Johnston published his work on the ‘ British Sponges,’ 
wherein he not only puts Esper’s representation under his 
“ Spongilla fluviatilis” (p. 159), but in his diagnosis of . 
Spongilla lacustris never mentions any thing about branching ; 
while the printed report of the “ Joint Standing Committee 
on the Impurity of the Boston Water-supply”’ (Document 
143—1881) contains an excellent illustration of the branched 
freshwater sponge of North America (viz. Spongilla lacus- 
trioides, Potts), under which is the name “ Spongilla fluvia- 
telis.”” How far this may be owing to Johnston’s mistake, 
which obtains in Ads illustration (pl. xviii.), as well as in his 
description, I am not able to say. 
So much for the branched forms of the freshwater sponges 
ot Kurope and the United States. We have now to add 
Uruguaya coraltioides from South America, and Lubomirskia 
baicalensis from Lake Baikal, in Central Asia, all the rest 
being, so far as I know, unbranched, sessile, spreading, plane, - 
lobate, or rendered irregular on the surface by more or less 
projecting processes, but not all fawn-colour. 
As regards Spongilla lacusiris, Dr. W. Dybowski (Mém. 
de l’Acad. Imp. d. Sc. St. Pétersbourg, 1882, t. xxx. no. 10, 
pp. 6, 7) not only enumerates seventeen places in Russia 
where it has been found, but includes among them the ‘‘ Pacha- 
bicha-See,” at the S.W. extremity of Lake Baikal, from 
whence his brother brought back a branched (‘ baumférmige’’) 
specimen charged with statoblasts (“‘ gemmule ”’); at the same 
time that he brought back the branched specimen of Spongia 
baicalensis, Pallas, which Dr. Dybowski has described, repre- 
sented, and made the type of a new genus under the name of 
“ Lubomirskia,” calling the species “ L. baicalensis”’ (op. cit. 
1880, t. xxvu. p. 11, Taf. 1. fig. 1), in which he found no 
statoblasts (“ Gemmule habe ich niemals gefunden,” p. 16), 
any more than in any of his sessile species of this genus and 
their varieties (op. et loc. cit.). 
It is worthy of remark, however, that where the specimen 
of Spongilla lacustris was found, another species, which he 
has described, illustrated, and named “ Spongilla sibirica” 
(op. cit. t.xxx. no. 10, p. 10), was obtained bearing statoblasts, 
‘seeing that it is identical with that obtained from the Schuyl- 
kill River, in Pennsylvania, by Prof. Leidy, and named by 
